...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. A >Setting up a discipline, II: British history of science and 'the end of ideology', 1931-1948
【24h】

Setting up a discipline, II: British history of science and 'the end of ideology', 1931-1948

机译：建立学科，二：英国科学史和“意识形态的终结”，1931-1948年

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

For the history of science the 1940s were a transformative decade, when salient scholars like Herbert Butterfield or Alexandre Koyre set out to shape postwar culture by promoting new standards for understanding science. Some years ago I placed these developments in a tradition of enduring arts-science tensions and the contemporary notion that previous, "sci-entistic", historical practices needed to be confronted with disinterested codes of historical craft (Mayer, 2000). Here, I want to further explore the ideological dimensions of the processes through which the academic study of science became institutionalized. Butterfield's generation of science historians moulded perception of science in highly specific ways. Whereas the scientist-historians of the 1930s put scientific innovation into its socio-economic contexts, postwar accounts portrayed the birth of modern science as an intellectual revolution. Anti-Marxism formed a defining feature of the process by which the image of scientific work as a disinterested journey of the mind came to be institutionalized. Rather than spelling the end of ideology, appointments processes in the early Cold War years reveal disagreement about what science was to be invariably coextensive with dissent about social and political order. Rather than testifying to irreconcilable conflicts between interestedness and historical craft, the work of both the 1930s and 40s speaks of surprisingly productive relations between the two.
机译：对于科学史而言，1940年代是一个变革性的十年，当时赫伯特·巴特菲尔德（Herbert Butterfield）或亚历山大·科伊尔（Alexandre Koyre）等著名学者着手通过推广理解科学的新标准来塑造战后文化。几年前，我将这些发展置于持久的艺术科学张力传统中，以及当代观念认为，以前的“科学主义”历史实践必须面对无私的历史工艺规范（Mayer，2000）。在这里，我想进一步探讨科学学术研究制度化的过程的意识形态维度。巴特菲尔德（Butterfield）的科学史学家这一代人以高度特定的方式塑造了对科学的认识。 1930年代的科学家-历史学家将科学创新纳入其社会经济背景，而战后的研究则将现代科学的诞生描绘为一场知识革命。反马克思主义形成了这一过程的决定性特征，通过这种过程，科学工作作为无私的心路历程的形象得以制度化。冷战初期的任命过程并没有说明意识形态的终结，而是揭示了人们对哪种科学总是与社会和政治秩序持不同意见同时存在的分歧。 1930年代和40年代的作品并没有证明兴趣与历史手法之间存在不可调和的冲突，而是谈到了两者之间令人惊讶的富有成效的关系。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号